Blaisdell v. State

Full title: DAVID BLAISDELL, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

Court: Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District

Date published: Jul 12, 2023

No. 4D22-1603 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jul. 12, 2023)

Opinion

4D22-1603

07-12-2023

DAVID BLAISDELL, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gary Lee Caldwell, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Picard, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; William L. Roby, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562021CF002462A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gary Lee Caldwell, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Picard, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the defendant's conviction for violating section 836.10, Florida Statutes (2021). We also affirm the sentence with respect to the defendant's claimed entitlement of additional county jail time credit against his consecutive prison terms. However, we accept the State's concession of error with respect to the trial court's assessment of $50 in investigative costs that were never requested by the State at sentencing. See Richards v. State, 288 So.3d 574, 576-77 (Fla. 2020) (imposition of investigative costs in the absence of a request by the State for such costs at sentencing is reversible error).

We therefore reverse the investigative costs assessment and remand with directions that these costs be stricken from the judgment. See Richards, 288 So.3d at 576 ("clear and unambiguous" language of statute authorizing investigative costs does not permit the State to "get the proverbial 'second bite at the apple' when it fails to satisfy [its] legal obligation the first time around" with respect to requesting such costs at sentencing); Rivera v. State, 336 So.3d 738, 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (the State is not permitted to seek investigative costs on remand when the assessment of such costs is reversed based on the failure to request them prior to judgment). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

WARNER, GERBER and ARTAU, JJ, concur